ECHR
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-07-06 | N/A | Admissibility decision by the Court for the first four applicants. | Strasbourg | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001207.jpg
This legal document analyzes the potential bars to the extradition of Ms. Maxwell from the UK to the US. It argues that bars related to oppression or human rights (Article 8 of the ECHR) are unlikely to be available to her, especially given that she absconded from the United States. The document also clarifies that the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition under the Extradition Act 2003 is not discretionary but is limited to specific statutory grounds.
DOJ-OGR-00002228.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit 103-2) dated December 23, 2020, analyzing UK extradition law in relation to Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that if Maxwell were to flee the US to the UK, she would likely be denied bail and her arguments against extradition (oppression, human rights) would fail due to 'bad faith' and the serious nature of the charges. It also clarifies the limited powers of the UK Secretary of State to refuse extradition under the Extradition Act 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00002228(1).jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a court filing from December 23, 2020, argues against the availability of certain bars to the extradition of Ms. Maxwell. It posits that a finding of oppression is unlikely given she absconded from the United States, and that human rights claims under the ECHR are also improbable. The document further clarifies that the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition is strictly limited by the Extradition Act 2003 and is not a matter of general discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00002108.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated December 14, 2020, analyzing the potential human rights objections Ghislaine Maxwell might raise against extradition to the US. The text specifically argues that Maxwell is unlikely to succeed in claiming a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR regarding prison conditions, citing numerous legal precedents where such claims were rejected. Footnotes reference specific cases and US detention facilities (MDC and MCC) in New York.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity